Complainant was registrant of United States trademarks COMPUSA and
CompUSA.com. Complainant has also registered the domain name CompUSA.com.
Respondent registered similar domain names BANCOMPUSA.COM and STOPCOMPUSA.COM.

Held, Names Not Cancelled

The Panelist finds that the marks and domain names are not confusingly
similar and are certainly not identical. No one could confuse COMPUSA,
or anyone of the registered trademarks, and STOPCOMPUSA.COM and BANCOMPUSA.COM.

Respondent has a legitimate, non-commercial interest in the domain
names protected under the First Amendment. His right to offer criticism
of the goods and services provided by Complainant are as legitimate as
any commercial activity.

Respondent has not acted in bad faith. Respondent has registered
the domain names for the purpose of selling the name to Complainant or
a competitor; he has not registered the names to prevent the Complainant
from registering the names; he has not registered the names for the purpose
of disrupting the business of a competitor.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) The domain names at issue are "STOPCOMPUSA.COM" and "BANCOMPUSA.COM",
registered with Register.com.
PANELIST(s)
The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving
as the panelist in this proceeding.
R. Glen Ayers was selected as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORYComplainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
("The Forum") electronically on 06/29/2000; The Forum received a hard copy
of the Complaint on 07/05/2000.
On 07/05/2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the
domain names "STOPCOMPUSA.COM" and "BANCOMPUSA.COM" are registered with
Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.
On 07/06/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/26/2000
by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted
to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, and to all entities and persons
listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts by e-mail.
Respondent timely filed his Response.
On August 9,2000, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute
decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers as
Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHTThe Complainant requests that the domain names be canceled.

PARTIES CONTENTIONSA. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the registration and use by Respondent
of the domain names "BANCOMPUSA.COM" and "STOPCOMPUSA.COM" violate the
ICANN Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy provisons set forth at Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy. It alleges:
that these domain names are"(i) ... identical or confusingly similar
..." to trademarks held by Complainant (Complaint also holds the trademark
"CompUSA.com" and has registered that mark as a domain name);
that Respondent has "(ii)... no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name;" and,
that Respondent has "(iii) ... registered and ... used" the domain
names "in bad faith."
the Complainant certainly offers ample evidence of its ownership and
registration of trade marks including the COMPUSA ® mark.
However, Complainant has offered no evidence of the violation by Respondent
of the provisions of Paragraph 4 other than the following simple assertions:
(i) the marks held by Complainant and the Respondents two domain names
are "nearly identical" - that is, Complainant asserts that the mark "COMPUSA"
and the domain names "BANCOMPUSA.COM" and "STOPCOMPUSA.COM" are almost
identical;
(ii) the Respondent cannot have legitimate interests in the domain
names because of the near identity with the trademark or marks of Complainant;
and,
(iii) the use by Respondent of the domain names is in bad faith because
he is "disrupting the business" of Complaint and has registered the names
for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent, of course, points out that the domain names and the trademarks
are not in any way identical or confusing.
He also asserts that he is not in any way using the mark or marks of
Complainant in a commercial context and that his use is protected speech
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Were this
a Lanham Act matter, the Panelist suspects that this defense to the registration
and use of the two domain names would be dispositive.)
Respondent goes on to point out that Complainant has offered no evidence
that he has disrupted the business of the Complainant.
His other factual contentions, all concerning his long history with
Complainants retail operations, his dissatisfaction with Complainants
business practices, and the like, are interesting but not germane except
to the extent those contentions clearly demonstrate that Respondent has
not acted in "bad faith" as that term is defined at Paragraph (4) (b) (i)-(iv)
of the Policies.

FINDINGSComplainant has failed to show that any of the three elements of Policy
Paragraph have been violated. First, there is absolutely no confusion or
similarity, much less identity, between the domain names and the trademarks
held by Complainant. No one could confuse "COMPUSA", or anyone of the registered
trademarks, and "STOPCOMPUSA.COM" and "BANCOMPUSA.COM".
Complainant has also failed to show that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondents rights clearly exist
under the First Amendment. His right to offer criticism of the goods and
services provided by Complainant are as legitimate as any commercial activity.
Finally, there is simply no evidence of "bad faith" as that term is
defined at Policy Paragraph 4(b). Respondent has not registered the domain
names for the the purpose of selling the name to the Complainant or a competitor;
he has not registered the names to prevent the Complainant from registering
the names; he has not registered the names for the purpose of "disrupting
the business of a competitor" - yes, he has registered the names for the
purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant, but he is not a competitor.
He is a commentator, if anything. Lastly, Respondent has not attempted
to attract internet users "for commercial gain" by use of a confusing domain
name. There is certainly no commercial use here and no confusion concerning
the Respondents purposes.

DISCUSSION Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy")
requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements
to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panelist finds that the marks and domain names are not confusingly
similar and are certainly not identical.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has a legitimate, non-commercial interest in the domain
names.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has not acted in bad faith as that term is used at Paragraph
4 (a) (iii) and (b) (i)-(iv).
After reading the pleadings, the Panelist is left with a bad taste.
Here, a large company, faced with criticism from an individual, has attempted
to use this process and procedure to stifle that criticism. If the actions
and conduct of Respondent are wrongful, then Complainant has access to
the courts of law, where the truthfulness of the allegations made by Respondent
can be challenged. Use of this forum by Complainant in this context is
inappropriate and constitutes "cyber-bullying."

DECISIONThe relief requested by Complainant is denied; the domain names are
not to be cancelled.
R. Glen AyersDated: August 17, 2000

Domain Names Not Cancelled

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in title

Search in content

Search in content

Search in excerpt

Search in posts

Search in posts

Search in pages

Search in pages

Filter by Categories

DNattorney com blog

DNattorney.com blog

Uncategorised

Uncategorised

Fast Free Consultations

CALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

Are you buying or selling domain names?

If you are interested in buying a domain name, a domain name portfolio, a website, or network of websites, very often a better price can be obtained from the seller by employing the services of an experienced Internet lawyer. We have acted for numerous domain name and website buyers and sellers, all over the world. We have acted in sales of single domain names from as little as $10,000.00 to sales of major domain name portfolios of over $10,000,000.00

Do you need help in a Domain Name Dispute?

We represent both domain name registrants and trademark owners in connection with Domain Name Disputes. Since 1999, we have represented hundreds of clients all over the world in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaints before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and in Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) arbitrations before the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) and Resolution Canada, as well as other online arbitration service providers.

Did cybersquatters take your domain name?

The first step in recovering your domain name from a cybersquatter is research. Whenever we are retained to assist you with recovering a domain name that rightfully belongs to you, we begin by thoroughly researching every aspect of the domain name and investigating the background of the cybersquatter. We employ unique methods that enable us to know who the cybersquatter is, what their intentions are, and the best method for recovering a particular domain name in the circumstances. In this manner, we always are able to provide you with the complete picture of the prospects for recovery and the issues that may be faced during the recovery process.

Who operates DNattorney.com?

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson. Muscovitch was the founder and publisher of Domain Name Law Reports - a volunteer organization that helped lawyers research Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and cases. Muscovitch has also released several studies. In 2010 he published a study following the case distribution among the panelists at National Arbitration Forum.